True true... I know this, it reminds me of the Brutus 20.... not the same, no, but reminds me of it. The size of the MLT will have to be huge, and using 5-7 more pounds of malt to compensate for the lack of a sparge seems counter productive.

I am all for trying new things, but I dont see the gain.

At this point, I don't think that there is a gain!

I still fool around with the 20 idea, it can make some great beers, but what it really comes down to is money! Any system can achieve 100% efficiency (per say) as long as we add more malt to the grain bill. The system in the OP simply will not do that as you say productively... But productive is the perspective of the OP... If money and space were no object, I suppose I wouldn't mind grinding dang near a sack of malt for a 10 gallon batch!

Just kidding... I just can't do it though...

But at the very same time I should confess, efficiency has NEVER been high on my list of things to be concerned about...

I still fool around with the 20 idea, it can make some great beers, but what it really comes down to is money! Any system can achieve 100% efficiency (per say) as long as we add more malt to the grain bill. The system in the OP simply will not do that as you say productively... But productive is the perspective of the OP... If money and space were no object, I suppose I wouldn't mind grinding dang near a sack of malt for a 10 gallon batch!

Just kidding... I just can't do it though...

But at the very same time I should confess, efficiency has NEVER been high on my list of things to be concerned about...

I agree here Lonnie, and I repsect your opinions on this. Efficiency is a number, and being consistent is the priority. BUT, I have to say that I would not set out to build a rig that will limit me to 50%-60% eff. to begin with. When I build I want consistency, efficiency and economy... economy including achieving a reasonable level of eff. so that I dont blow money on malt which is unnecessary.

I agree here Lonnie, and I repsect your opinions on this. Efficiency is a number, and being consistent is the priority. BUT, I have to say that I would not set out to build a rig that will limit me to 50%-60% eff. to begin with. When I build I want consistency, efficiency and economy... economy including achieving a reasonable level of eff. so that I dont blow money on malt which is unnecessary.

But what if Blackheart invested in large enough tuns (once off) and then in effect sparged rather than no sparged with this setup by:
-Mash with regular amount of mash water volume.
-End of mash, slowly deposit all the sparge water on top of the mash from the HLT/Kettle, not disturbing it, and resulting in a gradient of very sweet wort at bottom and just water at the top. This leaves the HLT/Kettle free.
-Slowly slowly (and this is probably the main downside) run off the liquor, effectively doing a fly-sparge into the kettle.
Probably not as efficient as a drain then fly-sparge approach, but probably not that far behind, if the gradient is maintained so that sweetness is drawn from the grain by the plain water
???.

I see 70-80% efficiency in my countertop Brutus 20, across all styles. It really is an ideal setup for small-batch brewing.

I think Lonnie is the inventor of the Brutus 10 and 20... if he sayes the eff. is poor on the 20, I believe him. This system in the OP is wholly no sparge, and this has been tried before on this scale with anywhere from 50% to 65% eff.

Since this guy is looking to do 10 gallon batches, IMHO he needs to find a way to effectively lauter that grain. Many people 80%-90% of them, only get 70% to 80% eff. even when they DO sparge. I personally find it hard to believe that on a 5 or 10 gallon system that one could reach the SAME eff. with a no sparge as they can with a typical system that sparges.

But, as with anything else, I think the OP should give it a shot, but he will need a MIN of 20 gallon MLT. He can brew a couple brews, check the eff. and if it is too low, he can add another kettle easily.

Yorg, I don't think you can effectively layer the entire sparge on top of the mash and expect it to stay stratified. The sugar is going to start diffusing in immediately and it will take time to get it all in there under the suggested "careful" movement of the water. It would probably yield slightly better efficiency than a deliberately equalized brutus 20 style, but I don't see a big advantage over adding a 3rd vessel. That's also a lot of weight on top of the mash. Wouldn't you get crazy compaction? Hey, you can catch the runnings in an ale pail on this system until the HLT is empty too.

I think Lonnie is the inventor of the Brutus 10 and 20... if he sayes the eff. is poor on the 20, I believe him.

You're quite the character Pol. I'm pretty sure if I said the sky was blue, you'd find a way to argue the point.

I know perfectly well who Lonnie is. I owe many great beers to his design. I'm simply pointing out that with an additional pump (or simply use gravity between the MLT and kettle as I do) the OP could have a Brutus 20.

Significant efficiency improvements in a 20 setup can be made by mashing thin and doing a good hot mashout. I do however share Lonnie's philosophy that efficiency is overrated. The quality of my beers increased dramatically when I quit playing the numbers game and just focused on making great wort instead.

You're quite the character Pol. I'm pretty sure if I said the sky was blue, you'd find a way to argue the point.

I know perfectly well who Lonnie is. I owe many great beers to his design. I'm simply pointing out that with an additional pump (or simply use gravity between the MLT and kettle as I do) the OP could have a Brutus 20.

Significant efficiency improvements in a 20 setup can be made by mashing thin and doing a good hot mashout. I do however share Lonnie's philosophy that efficiency is overrated. The quality of my beers increased dramatically when I quit playing the numbers game and just focused on making great wort instead.

I am not arguing with you brother, just making a point that the 20 doesnt get 80% eff. And the OP should not assume that a no sparge system will either. I was under the assumption that the 20 already utilized a hot mashout, so that was already figured into Lonnies eff. #'s. I could be wrong.

Eff. is overrated, but one does not have to "try" to get 80% eff. It comes pretty easily. My point, as Lonnie and I agreed on, was that limiting ones self to 50%-60% on a system build from the get go, may not make much sense.

How does a thin mash in the 20 affect the lauter eff., or is this simply improving the conversion eff.?

I still say built the OP rig as is... and check it out. People tell me all the time that my ideas wont work, but they do... these are just opinions that the OP asked for, but he can still build a 2 kettle system, get some data, and go from there.